RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> Dear Ross:  It was my intention to say that we would be 
> disappointed if 
> this provision was *not* included in the proposed procedures 
> which would be 
> disallowed.  We like this provision.  I believe you are 
> saying the same 
> thing.  Regards, BobC

Ahhh...okay...your response to Chuck's question confused me.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:21 AM
> To: Registrar Constituency
> Cc: 'Chuck Gomes'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> 
> 
> At 10:02 AM 9/23/02 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >What I mean is that if you, as the gaining
> >registrar, have received authorization from the registrant, then the 
> >lack of a response by the registrant to the losing registrar 
> (who might 
> >use an english only notice) should not be a reason for 
> denial - which 
> >is what the process that Chuck has put forward describes.
> 
> Dear Ross:  It was my intention to say that we would be 
> disappointed if 
> this provision was *not* included in the proposed procedures 
> which would be 
> disallowed.  We like this provision.  I believe you are 
> saying the same 
> thing.  Regards, BobC
> 
> 
>